WayStation MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'adds a new comment', which implies a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions required, rate limits, whether comments are editable/deletable, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or comment ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex behavior to explain, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, error handling) and doesn't explain what the tool returns, which is critical for an agent to use it effectively. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall context is insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('issueKey' and 'comment') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Adds') and resource ('a new comment to an existing Jira issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createJiraIssue' by specifying it's for commenting on existing issues, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment tools like 'createAsanaComment' or 'createLinearComment' beyond the Jira context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing Jira issue), compare with other comment tools in the sibling list, or specify contexts where it's appropriate versus other Jira tools like 'updateJiraIssue'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.